click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121006
20121014
STATION
CSPAN 61
LANGUAGE
English 61
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 61 (some duplicates have been removed)
it becomes an issue of regulatory compliance rather than defense. to the extent that you are drawing away resources to think about what is the latest iteration of the federal regulations on my network security rather than what i have been subject to and how we are going to deal with it -- i think that is dealing with it in a really misguided way. again, this is an area where i think there is broad consensus on the problem. people understand what the problem is. the question is, what is the role of the government to deal with it? the commercial market participants have enormous incentives, economic and reputation will and otherwise, to do everything they can to protect their network. the added addition of a regulation does not make them more incentive to protect -- make them more incentivized to protect their network. >> our guests are john kneuer and ed paisley from the center for american progress's action fund, and josh smith is our guest reporter from "the national journal." >> governor romney has not set out a specific proposal about cyber security, just general proposals. he has call
, that it could slow the economy in many areas. you have a lot of defense contractors worrying about what will happen at the turn of the new year. it is really anybody's guess. in terms of congress and whether they can come together after the election, but before every new person takes office, there is hope that congress and the white house can come to an agreement anteater postponed those spending cuts and tax increases, or come to -- and either postpone those spending cuts and tax increases, or come to some agreement. i think everyone thinks they may wait -- they may postpone and wait until the new session comes in and let them figure it out. but the so-called lame-duck session might see reasons to make a deal before the new people coming in. we will see. host: the next call comes from adam in phoenix, arizona. you say you are a student. what are you studying? caller: and studying economics. host: you have heard our conversation this morning. and what do you think? caller: i have. mr. rugaber said he was surprised with the unemployment dropping, but i was just reading about a month ago
. it is their responsibility to step up to their defense of their nation. [applause] we went for al qaeda. we went for some of the late in. we accomplished that goal. and now if it -- we went for osama bin laden. we accomplished that goal. and now it is time. congressman ryan made very clear that governor romney has a very different view. although he says that he thinks we should get out in 2014, although he says that that makes sense, he says we should never have announced that and i might add, had not, the afghans would never step up, which should never have announced that and, when asked to guarantee you will get out, he says it depends. no, i'm serious. you heard it. it depends on the situation on the ground. it depends. well it depends on nothing other than the date as far as we're concerned. it is time for the afghans to take care of their own responsibilities. [applause] but like almost everything, it depends. it depends on which day you asking the question. [laughter] it depends. it depends on the circumstances. but it was not just on foreign policy, it depends. it was also on their attitude of wha
. thirdly, this ongoing issue of how to deal with the impending defense cuts brought about through sequestration are a critically important issue for our nation. $1 trillion in defense cuts over the next two years is simply not acceptable to be able to defend our country and provide you, the men and women who will be in the military, with the support and equipment and material that you need to defend our nation's interests. while president obama has been largely a bystander and not forceful in preventing defense cuts, governor romney has been unequivocal that this policy must be reversed and more resources need to be applied to defense. i am delighted that governor romney has chosen at virginia military institute today to be able to deliver remarks on america's leadership role in the world and on foreign policy. he is a man of immense principle, immensely successful as a leader in the public and private sector. he was commander of the massachusetts national guard, and understands very well what the men and women in the national guard do to support the cause of freedom. please join
these devastating defense cuts. when we equivocate on our values, in excess more week. will we look week, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. -- when we'll look week, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. >> that is a bunch of malarkey. this lecture on embassies' security. the congressmen can embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we ask for. so much for the embassy's security. governor romney, before he knew the facts, before he knew that the ambassador was killed, and he was out making political statements. he was panned by the media around the world. this talk about this weakness, i do not understand my friend is talking about. this is a president who has done everything he has said he is going to do. he has repaired our alliances. this is a guy who brought the entire world to bring about the most -- the most devastating efforts on iran to make sure they stop. these guys back against america all the time. >> let me go back to libya. what were you first told about the attack? why were people talking about protests? when people in the consulate fi
we do that. i oppose duplicative programs in defense costing the government $3 billion. i've opposed subsidies for agribusiness in the midwest that cost -- a cost this government over $8 billion a year that we don't need. i oppose giving away tax breaks to the oil industry and gas industry to outsource. i have been able to stand up and oppose things we don't need the we need a combination of both additional revenue from those who have done very well by this economy and them some serious -- that is some serious spending cuts. the senator we're seeking to replace, we should elect someone in the senate is going to be willing to compromise. i am. linda mcmahon is not. she is one of these candidates who signed this pledge to grover norquist and a lobbying group in washington. in her debates, she said she agreed with mayor romney that if given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it. we don't need to send someone to washington who is going to feed this obstructionism and draw these ridiculously hard lines and the stand -- hard line in the sand.
defense cuts that are coming up this january. these are things he has mentioned before, so this speech seemed to be an opportunity to make that argument a little more forcefully and and a place like virginia where it is a major battleground this year. the obama campaign is responding with a tv ad of their own in virginia, focusing on governor romney's foreign trip abroad, saying this was a reckless tripped and using a lot of footage from that. less than a month away from election day, we have a turn back toward foreign policy. it is the mirror image of what happened in 2008 when foreign policy had the election but once the financial collapse happened, suddenly everything turned to the economic issues and now you're seeing the other way around. host: thank you for joining us. appreciate it. >> this is where mr. romney will give his speech this morning. this is the virginia military institute in lexington, virginia. you are looking at the hall of valor. now romney is set to give his foreign policy speech at of the debate on foreign policy october 26 in florida. we will have live coverage
to -- >> we are not going to cut the defense budget. >> no massive defense increase? how do you do that? >> a proposed $478 billion cut to defense. now we have another $500 billion cut defense that is working on the horizon. they insisted upon that being involved in the debt negotiations. >> no one wants that, but i want to know how you do the math. >> you do not cut the defense by a trillion dollars. we will cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes. if these cuts go through, our navy will be the smallest it has been since before world war i. this invites weakness. do we believe in peace through strength? you bet we do. do not cut the military by a trillion dollars. not increase it by a trillion, do not cut it by a trillion. >> we do not cut it. this so-called automatic cut, that was part of the debt deal they asked for. let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference. we have been looking for this moment for a long time. >> can i tell you what that meant? >> the bipartisanship was what he voted for the automatic cuts in defense because they did not act. the milit
will turn the department of defense into a police organization. we are using our military assets in a prudent way to deal with interdiction. and we have made some success in this area. 70 tons of cocaine have been stopped. but when you look at the drug problem and it is a tremendous problem and there are no easy solutions to it. it is a complicated problem in setting up the effort to try to create a drug-free america, which is a challenge and global the us, not only will utilize national defence and the department of defense. we have to get on the demand side of the ledger. we have to get the education. education ought to begin at home and it ought to be reinforced in our schools. and there is another thing that will be more important than the promise of this question on the hypothetical of using troops. we will use military assets, but we need to focus on another part of this problem. and that problem is law enforcement. here's where we have a major disagreement with the governor of massachusetts. he is opposed to the death penalty for drug kingpins scared we believe that people
the modernization of our forces with these disproportionate cuts that are coming to our national defense. tim and his allies up in washington are saying we do not want these cuts from defense as the house did or did something similar to that. what they want to do is raise taxes. it will not create any jobs. we in virginia have over 200,000 defense and technology jobs. rather than cutting back, we need to make sure we have a strong economy, a strong military. as far as our spending, i disagree with the president giving money -- if they cannot protect our embassies, they should not be getting our money. do not buy a friends. >> isn't there is 60-second rebuttal? >> no, there is not. >> island that on the first one. >> i thought i did, too. >> if we were both under the impression. >> virginia seniors who rely on social security benefits are in for a lifetime of work. almost 1 million virginians receiving social security check every month. they are very polite, receiving on average about 77% of their total monthly income from this alone. an aging society will put strain on the program into the fu
. the one thing he ran away from, the $2 billion comment that govern the romney made, the defense spending. he could not explain their medicare plan. he tried to run away from the fact on senior citizens over time. he criticized the stimulus plan, the recovery act, stopping the free-fall of the economy. he looked sheepish when the vice president mentioned brian himself had written a letter asking for the money from the program because he said it would help the wisconsin economy and would create jobs in winter -- in wisconsin. i thought congressman ryan was on the run from start to finish. the one thing he did say and the american people heard clearly tonight is they will not hear the commitment to leave afghanistan in 2014. was one of the only things he made clear tonight. it was a decisive victory. >> style vs. content? how would you judge it? >> i do not know how earnest you are when you are running away from every question you ask. i do not think that is earnest. it looked like a principled debate. in terms of style, joe biden is authentic and real. he is straightforward. he says woody
, ronald reagan, who was known for his strength on national defense. i was only able to find the data base of the navy and marine victims. there are 56 dead, 46 wounded. a lot of us remember that as a peaceful time. it was not. sam novello, killed by turkish leftist, istanbul, turkey. marines wounded in a terrorist attack in costa rica. one u.s. embassy marine security guard wounded in beirut, lebanon. terrorist bombing of the u.s. and debate -- embassy in beirut, lebanon. lt. cmdr killed by terrorists in all salvador. corporal d.r. mo -- killed in a terrorist attack in cyprus. shocked by terrorist near athens, greece. -- shot by terrorists near athens, greece. hospital man wounded beirut, lebanon. michael wagner assigned to the defense office, killed. civil engineer harvey whitaker, killed. builder first-class and four marine security guards when did in the terrorist bombing of u.s. embassy in beirut, lebanon. steelworker, a second class, underwater construction team, killed by terrorist, athens, greece. off-duty marines assigned to -- killed by terrorist, armed with automatic weapons at
am an honorably discharged united states marine. i served in desert storm. i am a criminal defense attorney for 19 years. i started off my law firm in 2007 and i employ 11 full-time people at my firm. i know what it is like to run a small business. we have strayed far from the principles of limited government. our government taxes and spends out of control and our civil liberties are constantly under attack. we can fix it, but we need to get government back into its cagae. >> our final opening statement is from jeff flake. >> good to be here. two days ago, cheryl and i received a wonderful phone call from my son syan and forming as we are grandparents. aidan was born into a wonderful family, but he was born into $50,000 of debt. his share of the federal debt we all hold. that is why the stakes in this election are so high. we have to have somebody who understands fiscal discipline. that has been my record in the house of representatives, where i fought my own leadership on issues like earmarks. they punish me for it, but i kept at it and we do not have earmarks any more. that is th
been specific about where we do that. i oppose duplicative programs in defense costing the government $3 billion. i've opposed subsidies for agribusiness in the midwest that cost -- a cost this government over $8 billion a year that we don't need. i oppose giving away tax breaks to the oil industry and gas industry to outsource. i have been able to stand up and oppose things we don't need the -- i have stood up and opposed wasteful spending. but i do believe we need a combination of both. we need additional revenue from those who have done very well by this economy and some serious spending cuts. we need both. the senator we're seeking to replace, we should elect someone in the senate is going to be willing to compromise. i am. linda mcmahon is not. she is one of these candidates who signed this pledge to grover norquist and a lobbying group in washington. in her debates, she said she agreed with mayor romney that if given a chance to cut spending by $10 and increase revenue by $1 that she would not take it. we don't need to send someone to washington who is going to feed this obstruc
the department -- it's a part of defense. they are not enforcing with me to be doing. they claimed how great a system they have. the have a grid system on line but for people to physically go in and look for the ballot. that is great if they are internet savvy. by the time it hits people, it is too late, probably by september or october. in the civilian world, we can walk into a department of motor vehicles office or a social services office and we can even walk into recording station -- i've heard they have offered opportunities for people to vote. when you are on active duty in the military, there is no way to go unless they have those of us is set up. i don't mean an officer who has five other things to do. if they do collateral duty, it means they are not graded on performance of that extra duty. they need to allocate about money to get this accomplished which is a blatant dishonest statement. they have $75 million over the past three years allocated to them. $46 million a lot to get this set up in 2011 and they have managed to perfect their internet and voting? internet registration. th
defense cuts. what that does well way equivocate on our values, we sure we are cutting our own defense, it projects weakness. will we look we, our adversaries are more willing to test us. >> with all due respect, that is a bunch of malarkey. not a single thing said is accurate. i will be very specific. number one, this lecture on embassy security, the congressmen here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for. so much for the embassy security. no. -- no. two, before he even knew the ambassador was killed, he was making political statements that was panned by the media around the world. this talk about this weakness, i do not understand what my friend is talking about here. this is a president has gone out and done everything he has said he will do. this is a guy who has repaired our alliances of the rest of the world follows us again. this is a guy who has brought the entire world including russia and china to bring about the most devastating efforts on the iran did to make sure they in fact stop. these guys bet against america all the time. >> a look b
of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. we need to be straight with the american people. >> time for a new question but the same topic. this time to you, senator edwards. you and senator kerry have said the war in iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time. does that mean if you had been president and vice president that saddam hussein would still be in power. >> here's what it means. it means that saddam hussein needed to be confronted. john kerry and i have consistently said that. that's why we voted for the resolution. but it also means it needed to be done the right way. and doing it the right way meant that we were prepared -- we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction, that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are al qaeda, osama bin laden, the people who attacked us on september 11. now remember, we went into afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. that wases the right decision. our military performed terrifically there. but we had osama bin laden corne
words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being deeply cut off, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership but of passivity. host: that was mitt romney yesterday. it garnered a headline in "usa today" -- how much of the speech was against president obama and what he's done and how much of it was laying on his own trajectory and agenda? guest: mostly in his role as a challenger, this is about a critique of the obama foreign- policy. that's a very common tactic by challengers. he talked about hope is not a strategy. he's trying to emphasize his critique of obama as leading from behind, which was from an unnamed administration official at the end of a 8000 word new yorker magazine piece last year. it has become a staple of republican critics of the president's foreign-policy. there are some real differences between obama and romney when it comes to foreign policy. those are substantive. romney has called a rush of the number one geopolitical foe of the u.s. promised to the surprise even of his own advise
of defense in a coordinated effort, in reconnaissance. but i don't believe that we are going to turn the department of defense into a police organization. we are using our military assets in a prudent way to deal with interdiction, and we've made some success in this area. seventy tons of cocaine have been stopped. but, you know, when you look at the drug problem and it is a tremendous problem, and there are no easy solutions to it it's a complicated problem, and it's heading up the effort to try to create a drug-free america, which is a challenge and a goal of all of us. not only will we utilize national defense and the department of defense, but we've got to get on the demand side of the ledger; we've got to get to education. and education ought to begin at home, and it ought to be reinforced in our schools. and there's another thing that will be more important than the premise of this question on a hypothetical of using troops. we will use the military assets, we will use military assets but we need to focus on another part of this problem, and that problem is law enforcement. and
eliminated. the senior political science major here wants to know how you can protect connecticut defense businesses? >> i have been proud to have stood up for spending cuts. i do not think we need $6 billion in agricultural subsidies to midwestern farmers. i do not think we need a $3 million to put the engine. -- duplicative engine. i have been clear that on our medicare budget we need to gruen efficiency by stopping to pay insurance and drug companies. deficit-reduction has to be balanced. there's no way to do this without spending cuts and some additional revenue. linda mcmahon signed this pledge to grover norquist saying that she would never vote for any revenue increases into the federal government. we do not need to send someone to washington who will be part of the obstruction. we need to bring people together and recognize you have to be serious about spending cuts. the approach has to be balanced. >> we cannot close the dead by not reducing spending. what he describes is a very dim view of the american economy. my plan will cut taxes for the middle class and put them back to work
to eliminate those that aren't working. i know a lot of them that aren't working. one of them is in defense spending, because i've taken on some of the defense contractors. i saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an air force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion. i believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. and sometimes those projects, not the overhead projector that senator obama asked for, but some of them that are really good projects, will have to be eliminated as well. and they'll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others. so we're going to have to tell the american people that spending is going to have to be cut in america. and i recommend a spending freeze that, except for defense, veterans affairs, and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have across-the-board freeze. and some of those programs may not grow as much as we would like for them to, but we can establish priorities with full transparency, with full knowledge of the american people, and full consultation, not done behind closed doors and shoving earma
year, the department of defense has been working closely with other agencies to understand where are the lines of responsibility when it comes to cyber defense? where do we draw those lines? how do those responsibilities get executed? as part of that effort, the department is now finalizing the most comprehensive change to our rules of engagement in cyberspace in seven years. the new rules will make clear that the department has a responsibility not only to be thin d.o.d.'s networks -- to networks, but to defend the nation and our natural -- national interests in cyberspace. these new rules makes the department more agile and provides us with the ability to confront major threats quickly. to execute these responsibilities, we must have strong organizational structures in place. three years ago, the department took a major step forward by establishing the united states cyber command. under the leadership of a four start officer who also served as the director of the national security agency, cyber command has matured into what i believe it is a world-class organization. it has the
with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical islam perpetuated by khamenei. because we have done that and because the saudi arabians have shot down a couple of the intruding airplanes we have helped keep the peace in the persian gulf. >> representative ferraro, you and mr. mondale have criticized the president on international terror. what would you do to reduce the attached? >> mr. bush has preferred to the embassy that was held in iran. i went to the white house in january in 1981 when all 52 of the hostages came home alive. at that time, president reagan gave a speech welcoming them home. we were so excited to see them back. but he said was, the united states has been embarrassed -- what he said was, the united states has been embarrassed for the last time. next time, there will be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong against our country. in april of 1983, i was in beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. two weeks later, the embassy was bombed. take a look at the crazy activities of terrorism -- terrorists. you never know what will happen. t
jurisdiction was raised as a defense, right? >> personal jurisdiction was raised as an affirmative defense, but not raised in a motion to dismiss. >> and so your position is it was waived? >> yes. >> but it was not adjudicated. is there -- >> it was not adjudicated in this case. our position, it was waived when it was not raised in a rule 12 motion. >> what effects that commenced in the united states or that are closely related to the united states exist between what happened here and what happened in nigeria? >> the only connection between the events in nigeria and the united states is that the plaintiffs are now living in the united states and have asylum because of those events, and the defendants are here. there's no other connection between the events that took place in the -- in nigeria and the forum. the basis for suing the defendants here was because they are here and because it was possible to get jurisdiction. >> and just to make it clear -- >> yes. >> it's your position -- and i believe it's the position of the united states, i'm not sure -- that if a u.s. corporation commits an
. the department of defense have an awesome -- an office call fsap and a handle all overseas military registration. it has been running in effectively four years. it was ineffective while i was on board and is still ineffective. in 2009, i testified in front of a senate armed services committee -- a congressional arms services committee, and i explained in a nutshell what i just told you about how difficult it was to be able to register and i offered ideas of what we need to do to modify that. we've got to get more opportunity for these people to get an office available for them to check into their new duty station that will help them to register to vote and inform them on whether state laws and deadlines are. you become oblivious why you're on active duty. next thing you know, it is election time and you needed to know about the six months earlier when you were in the field. host: there is a story from the "military *." times" guest: that is just astonishing. this law passed in 2009 and it required by federal law that every installation had a voting assistance office established. it was supposed
defense and nato, as well as a general outline of his approach to foreign policy. we want your reaction. you can see the numbers up there on the screen. you can also send eight weeks. we are using the hashtag #cspan 2012. what did you think of this speech? caller: i think governor romney is trying to propagate a policy that he really does not have any experience in. the things that he says are good. they sound good. but i think the american people and the people of the world are just really not into being the police of the world, as governor romney is suggesting in this speech and lately since the debate. i think, again, it sounds good, but i do not think it is good for the country. host: our next call comes from battle creek, michigan, on our independent line. caller: i am ex-military, and i fought in desert storm. yeah, i think it's a lot of words. i have heard the same song and dance before. host: you got to turn the volume down on your tv. caller: ok, sorry. host: what specifically did you think was a lot of words? caller: about how his policies would be very strict on these other c
question. brac, the base realignment and closure process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we can provide a good analysis as to what is going on. provide them with the toolsthe jobs are. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. industry in massachusetts. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their pr
thing is, these companies, these defense companies are suppose to send out notices to employees if there's a big event taking place within 60 days. yet the president tells them do not send those notices out. again, against the law but yet nobody calls him on it. why do we have them there in the first place? can the president say i will break the law and there's no ramification? host: robby mook. guest: look budgets should get passed and we got to figure out the sequestration. the problem is the tea party republicans who came to congress are drawing lines they won't cross and compromise. they refuse to put revenue on the table and they all signed a pledge for grover norquist. they will do anything for tax breaks for millionaires and oil companies and whole host of breaks for corporations. we will not solve this problem until tea party republicans can come to the table. guest: the democrats will only come to the table if they figure out someone to tax. the fact is, they have to budget. obama -- it's amazing to me that we have a president put a budget up here and got zero votes. we step
process, could call for cuts for many defense related programs in massachusetts. if that happens, where would you stand for cuts to trim the deficit, or to prefer pentagon spending and jobs provided for the economy in massachusetts? >> great question. i am still serving in the national guard. i have been there in that capacity. and as a senator, making sure we to what is going on. the jobs are critical. we have a strong defense industry in massachusetts. we need to make sure we can protect them, as well. it will be a challenge. i worked on the first base closure when i was a state senator. i have been fighting and working now, meeting with the personnel. also, at the air force base. to make sure we provide them. as a ranking member of armed services and having the ability to meet with these people and get the information and battle in a consistent basis for them, i am looking forward to that opportunity. as you know, especially, they have a mission where their proficiency is so much better than the active forces, and to think we will put that in jeopardy because a political agenda, i wi
. for conservatives, the same is true, only in reverse. they love to attack affirmative action in defense of so-called color blind policies, and often lost in the middle of the polarizing arguments is the ultimate goal, achieving equality for those who have been shut out of opportunities. from its inception by president johnson until the 1978 decision in the regions of the university until the 2003 outlin decision that affirmed affirmative action policies at the university of michigan, the practical implementation of affirmative action has been a patchwork of legal impressions about how best to make amends for the past practices of legal and racial inequality. regrettably, the jubilant surrounding the affirmative action debate has taken over that debate. the real ideals behind affirmative action have been so misconstrued over the years that it helps to look back and to see why it was deemed necessary in the first place. the widely misunderstood -- though not -- widely misunderstood or grossly mischaracterizes as reverse discrimination against white americans, it was originally an acknowledgemen
and defense. if i paid david to be resident scept uk i didn't pay him enough. it understand that you know, he is not going to be a cheerleader for one party or the other. i happen to think that our front line candidates, democratic incumbents in tough districts are in good shape for two reasons: number one, if they could win in 20010 against the roughest and the most brutal environment that many of us have ever seen, they can win in 2012. it is much more hos pit k!able environment for democrats. number two, they are field tested and battle ready. they know what is out there. they have been working their districts very, very hard. they are connecting with their voters and virtually all of our front line in cum dent incumbents are much better shape in the polls than the republican in you cum bents are who barely holding on right now. we are in 2012, we are in better shape than we were in 201 and in 2012, republicans are where we were in 2010. >> congressman, if i could follow up then, let's say the democrats do take back the housing. do democrats automatically put nancy pelosi back in the speak
as we would want. so we have to play offense and defense. if i could pay david to be a resident skeptic, could not pay him enough. i happen to think that our front-line candidates, even in top district, are in pretty good shape for zero good reasons. if they could win in 2010 against the roughest and most brutal environment that many of us have ever seen, they can win in 2012. it is a much more hospitable environment for democrats. no. 2, they are field tested and battle ready. they know is out there. they have been working their districts very hard. they're connecting with their voters. virtually all of our front-line incumbents are much -- are a much better shape in the polls than the republican incumbents, which is barely holding on with their fingernails are now. in 2012, we are in better shape than we were in 2010. and in 2012, the republicans are where we were in 2010. but let's say the democrats do take back the house. new democrats automatically but nancy pelosi back in the speakership? >> i hope so, but that is a decision we are not focused on and alfred nancy pelosi knows that
in the middle east when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being deeply cut off, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership but of passivity. host: that was mitt romney yesterday. it garnered a headline in "usa today" -- how much of the speech was against president obama and what he's done and how much of it was laying on his own trajectory and agenda? guest: mostly in his role as a challenger, this is about a critique of the obama foreign- policy. that's a very common tactic by challengers. there were some good lines. he talked about hope is not a strategy. he's trying to emphasize his critique of obama as leading from behind, which was from an unnamed administration official at the end of a 8000 word new yorker magazine piece last year. it has become a staple of republican critics of the president's foreign-policy. there are some real differences between obama and romney when it comes to foreign policy. those are substantive. romney has called a rush of the -- called russia the number one geopolitical
not energy related. our approach was to basically consider five plausible defense that could follow a nuclear iran and have an impact on oil supply and demand over three years. some were probable -- more plausible but others. the five are greater political stability in saudi arabia, more attacks on saudi arabia facilities, potential saudi- iranian nuclear exchange, and potential is really a nuclear exchange, and what happens if a nuclear iran allows the to affect the oil market. we took these events. and assigned probabilities to the events. and we assess how it would impact the risk premium of the oil price. and to be clear, markets -- clean oil markets react to change expectations for future supply and demand. people often think, if there is a disruption, the market is affected. obviously is. but the expectation of change in supply and demand alone affects the market. and that is more of the focus of our report, on the expectation. once the book of how these expectations will affect the market, we bending macroeconomic analysis on what this would -- how it would impact the united states eco
, they will cut about a trillion dollars of the military. the secretary of defense said those cuts would be devastating to america. to the military, the national security. i will not make those cuts. i will not cut our military. i will keep its second to none in the world. [cheers and applause] and when it came to jobs, both last night with president biden and in my debate with president obama, they did not have a plan for creating jobs for middle income americans. they say they care about middle income americans, and believe they do, but they don't want to do. they say we will have another stimulus. how did the last one work out? and then it will hire more government workers. there is nothing wrong with government workers, but that will knock the economy going. and then they have plans to make investments, they say. a friend of mine said that they don't want to pick winners and losers, they just pick losers. and then they want to raise taxes. i don't think anyone believes raising taxes creates more jobs. they just don't understand what it takes to get this economy going, and we have a p
that defense contractors must send out notices to employees that will be laid off. they are getting nervous. if you are a dividend investor in looking at it going from 15 to 45% in were one with some probability, -- in january, you are worried about being in the market. if we go over the fiscal club, it would be irresponsible in the extreme. the entire issue with the fiscal cliff is to get from here to spring 2013 being goods to words in the economy and not causing a recession. that should be the goal. if you look at the pieces of the cliff, the payroll tax cut, the temporary holiday, i think there is pretty much a bipartisan consensus that will go away. i consider it inconceivable we will get rid of the new taxes between now and june were one. -- january 1. that places a real premium on avoiding the rest of the tax hikes and spending cuts. i think the sensible thing to do is to say to congress, and your strong this in case -- your strongest debate, please extend tax rates for one year, and would you get to the sequester, the $109 billion across-the- board spending cuts for defense and non-
of our forces with these disproportionate cuts that are coming to our national defense. tim and his allies up in washington are saying we do not want these cuts from defense as the house did or did something similar to that. what they want to do is raise taxes. it will not create any jobs. we in virginia have over 200,000 defense and technology jobs. rather than cutting back, we need to make sure we have a strong economy, a strong military. as far as our spending, i disagree with the president giving money -- if they cannot protect our embassies, they should not be getting our money. do not buy a friends. second't there is 60- rebuttal? >> no, there is not. >> island that on the first one. >> i thought i did, too. >> if we were both under the impression. >> virginia seniors who rely on social security benefits are in for a lifetime of work. almost 1 million virginians receiving social security check every month. they are very polite, receiving on average about 77% of their total monthly income from this alone. an aging society will put strain on the program into the future. how woul
who kills in self-defense in the home. it's still true that the home in our country is the single most dangerous place for a woman, it's not the street. so we need to look at what really exists, highlight what really exists, see things in a different frame, see equal pay as an economic stimulus. has anybody written about it that way? i have not seen it. and understand the profound deep implications of what we are about. sometimes there is an immediate thing we need to do. obviously we need to reauthorize the violence against women act before the end of this year, right. [applause]. one of the hold was so outrageous because it was about indian country where there is more violence against women and that's what they didn't want. this room knows more about the process of the senate and the house. but sometimes there is an immediate goal of that sort. and then there is the very long-term goal of understanding not to be -- i don't want to frighten anybody here, but it is the key to world peace. that is a huge distance and it's absolutely true. we need to understand that the question can wome
is called both cooperative states and helping them with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical islam perpetuated by khamenei. because we have done that and because the saudi arabians have shot down a couple of the intruding airplanes we have helped keep the peace in the persian gulf. >> representative ferraro, you and mr. mondale have criticized the president on international terror. what would you do to reduce the attached? >> mr. bush has preferred to the embassy that was held in iran. i went to the white house in january in 1981 when all 52 of the hostages came home alive. at that time, president reagan gave a speech welcoming them home. we were so excited to see them back. but he said was, the united states has been embarrassed -- what he said was, the united states has been embarrassed for the last time. next time, there will be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong against our country. in april of 1983, i was in beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. two weeks later, the embassy was bombed. take a look at the crazy activities of
suggested if we went off the fiscal cliff and have the spending cuts in defense, that it would kill jobs in virginia. >> but that's where you need leadership from the top. and successful governors do two things well. they provide leadership and they propose bold initiatives to their legislatures and they also have a strategy or a blueprint for economic growth in their state for the future. those are the successful governors. we need the same type of leadership in the white house. >> no president has had reorganization authority since ronald reagan lost in the 1980's, when it expired. i think there needs to come back. i would put back some type of entitlement authority that was lost after the nixon era. the subcommittees in congress are not very good managers of certain things. so there has to be a combination. you cannot leave the size and structure of the government we have in place. this government functions on a 19th century organization model despite the availability of 21st century technology. everybody is automating everything and it's very slow. you look at the demographics of the
of defense, they know when we are attacked the border and we do not. we're going up the work together to protect the american public's we can stop cyber crime. it's a big deal. it's going to get worse. computers in 10 years will be 100,000 times faster. we're going to work on that in every way, shape, and form. banks are pretty good at this. we have been doing in a long time. we have to really stay in front of it. those of you who worry about it, it does not only come over the this -- the internet. think about when they join your company from the inside. that's where we're going to get. >> thank you for reassuring point. [laughter] the young lady in the second to last rolw. >> that is why you have fire walls to prevent everyone getting to all of these systems. >> many of the roles coming out of dodd frank have yet to be written. how much of an impact is this having under business? >> it the look at this quarter, we will release earnings on friday, it's pretty good. small business loans are up, 12 straight months. middle-market loans are up. market shares are up. trades have been ok. m
we must reform healthcare, if you leave defense of medicine out of it, you haven't done a thing. ask the people of montana, they were told insurance premiums will go down $2500, they went up. it cost every member in montana $5000 for your experiment supporting the president. >> senator tester you have 30 seconds. >> i will say this, any time jobs are lost, that's a bad deal. we're talking about epa regs been on the books for 20 years. with a talking about a company that made $1.60 billion in profits last year. the fact, they should invest in that plant. the problem is, congressman, you bring up stuff and hope it sticks. i did not vote for cap and trade. i voted for procedural motion to talk about energy policy in this country. we need to have a debate about that energy policy. we need to have a debate on cap and trade too. to make sure it work or not work for this country. there's plenty of things we need to debate for him to stand up here and list off a litany of things and pull them out of air, i guess it's a baloney. >> it is your turn to ask a question. >> thank you steve, congre
weeks doing what he intended to do rather than playing defense. i do know that focus groups, both romney campaign ran and the obama campaign ran showed these remarks really alienated independent voters and even weak republicans. which indicates to me that this comes up again in the debate and advertising, it will remind people. they forgot about it or responding to the debate. host: let's go to phone calls. barb, democratic caller you're on the air. caller: i would like to say that romneyexpressed his real feeling about the 47%. it cannot be ignored. also understand that he signed grover norquist pledge. if he did that, he cannot represent 100% of the population because if you say that you're going to ignore the situation that the country is in, you cannot say that you unequivocally ignore taxes and to get income to support the country. with that, he could not represent me and the middle class and or poor people. host: we'll leave it there. john in north carolina, tweets in this though. the 53% are not in the least offended by the comment which was by and large true. guest: everyone has
at the budget, a look at the budget you get down to military and defense spending or the bush tax cuts. >> are you talking about the bush tax cuts on all income levels? >> there is no qualification in that statement. what i said, and i still stand by, there are three things that doubled on national debt -- the bush tax cuts, -- >> the question is, do you want to expire them in total? there was no qualification. >> i am getting there. i think, and i still say, that we have to look at every single one of them and determine if we can use some of that money to pay down our national debt. we can lie to the american people or tell the truth. the truth is that those tax cuts, if we let them expire, will increase our national debt by almost one-half. >> what is your position, mr. cruz? >> i would not allow the bush tax cuts to expire. i'm curious. i will commend mr. sadler. he is running a campaign with a great deal of courage because he is running an unapologetically liberal campaign and is running in support of raising taxes, a host of liberal views. i commend him for his candor in that. i d
to affect the issue of the americans being interested in the defense budget? it is ones like this that make me weary of these straight-line projections in the future based on how things look right now. >> i'm at the point about iran and the likelihood that we would end up in some kind of action there. question from the audience. front row. >> governor romney said he wants to create 12 million jobs in his term. that's 250,000 a month. in the past, the u.s. has always been an exporter. that is what created jobs. how do you see his comments of creating 12 million jobs in four years? >> unlikely. >> ok. that's one view. unlikely. does anyone want to eelaborate on that? >> i think we're in a completely different job market. . and i just think that if we are -- the huge advantage in this world. we have the highest imagination enabling countries in the world. if you have the spark of an idea, you can go to delta and they will design this for you. jump over to amazon " gift wrap it for christmas. all commodities except for this. the problem with this is that the days where ford will move to your to
christie. two years ago. in my defense, people still thought varius congressmen who didn't even run were going to be the candidates. it was two cpacs away from the presidential election. because it's so hard to beat an incumbent president, i still love chris christie and i hope he does run for president someday. he was so brave in the way he took on the public sector unions the way no republican had ever done before and everybody loved it. and he was just so articulate and bright. and he had become this star. i thought we would probably lose this election. because you can't take out an incumbent. especially one who's personally likable as obama is. and then for one thing, chris christie made it very clear he wasn't running, but i supported romney back in 2008. and i changed my mind about being able to beat obama. though i don't think anyone could have done it. and mitt romney is not only best candidate to run against obama because in the past, he has basically forced his opponents to default. he did when he ran for the illinois legislature. he did it when he ran for the senate. he forced
on wednesday. the u.s. strongly supported the meeting of the nato council that reassured turkey that defense commitments from the other members of the alliance were still firm and includes the united states. the u.s. has all along supported and very closely ashrined with turkish policy with regard to the regime and the need for asad to go and end repression. the problem is, that neath are the turks or the united states have been able to, don't have any leverage on assadand no able to convince him and he has looked more are to his iranian and russian supporters to try retain power in the hopes that perhaps the reluctance of the west and his own reegg pression will allow him to remain in power. >> richard in florida, pent caller, you are up. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: thank you. if you please allow me to finish. it appear that's the obama administration is working with muslim brotherhood and al ga q dan the mideast to systematically eliminate the regimes in all the countries and also christian anti-and judaism, and lib, you know, obama administration working wit
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 61 (some duplicates have been removed)